you and bob had to con for -- convince president obama that candidate obama said about the mandate was incorrect and the second irony was -- think tanks in the '90s as a market base way to extend coverage. so given those two ironies as you saw not just from the evolution, but you literally in n the white house during the oral argument. how did the process play out? >> i think it's a good point. it's possible only in washington, d.c., that you can have a situation where conservatives and republicans come up with an idea, democrats then embrace it and republicans say that's a horrible idea. it just ludicrous. as you correctly point out the history is that the individual mandate was the developed conceptionly by one of my colleagues now, mark from the university of -- and the heritage foundation as a alternative to the employer mandate. they didn't like that. and we, you know, embraced it, had a certain advantages. obviously had had been run in massachusetts and shown to be successful in getting the exchange up. reducing what bob pointed out adverse selection allows you to have something